Are female characters in Fantasy subservient to their male counterparts?

[Anne Lyle]

Does the instinct, if it exists, arise from the physique, or is it the opposite?

Not physique, but hormones. Hormones have a huge effect on our behaviour, and of course the two sexes have different hormone balances. For example, it's been shown that women are more attracted to hunky, macho men in the middle of their menstrual cycle, when they're fertile!

It seems to me, that if a person was trained to be a smithy, or a physicist, he should not prefer being a miner or a historian.

Why? Plenty of people, male and female, get pushed into careers they're not interested in by well-meaning parents. Fiction is rife with this theme.

And that's "smith", by the way. "Smithy" is the place where a smith works

Here I go, putting my head on the block, there are roles for which men are better equipped than women, just as the role of child bearing & rearing is especially suited to women.

Only a few roles are strongly reliant on male or female physique. Men naturally have more upper body strength, so any job that relies on a lot of heavy lifting or similar is going to be easier for a man - but not impossible for a woman (provided she isn't too petite). When it comes to mental aptitudes, there are some skills that are more common in men than in women, and vice versa, but there is a great deal of overlap.

Men and women are individuals, not two mutually exclusive groups. Some men enjoy working with children (and not for pervy reasons!), some women like me would rather work with computers any day of the week, thanks.

 

[Parson]

I, for one view the Genesis Adam & Eve story as an allegory for childhood innocence & coming of age; though either way, it apparently places women in the inferior role. As an allegory, it only gives an explanation for the way society was, but as history, it demands things be that way.

Lots of fodder in that post but I take exception to this part particularly.

I would argue that it does not matter if you take the Genesis account literally or allegorically. In neither case does it "demand" that things be in any one particular way. The Bible and particularly the Old Testament developed in an extremely patriarchal society. And it is interesting to note (if you see the Old Testament as history) that there are women who develop into both strong heroes and villains. Leaving the role of strong capable woman open to any woman who aspires to it.

But if the Old Testament narrative is rife with allegory, you have to deal with the strong capable women that do appear in the Old Testament. Then you probably have to conclude that women should aspire to these important roles.

A person can make a strong case that in the context of the historical times in which the Bible was written that it was quite positive of the role and ability of women. (If you bring it up to modern times, not so much, but better than most critics want to believe.)

 

[Jeffbert]

Why? Plenty of people, male and female, get pushed into careers they're not interested in by well-meaning parents. Fiction is rife with this theme.

Men and women are individuals, not two mutually exclusive groups. Some men enjoy working with children (and not for pervy reasons!), some women like me would rather work with computers any day of the week, thanks.

I have failed! Though I tried to avoid it, I cannot. I must be explicit: Men cannot give birth or milk; the woman's body is specially adapted to those tasks. My comments about the Smith (thanks for the correction) wanting to be a miner was a failed attempt to make that point, which I hoped would have been implied by the topic of this thread, etc. There, I have said it. Now I'm gonna die! Men, not being burdened with wombs & such, are free to pursue adventure, or rather forced into it because the women are otherwise occupied. The hunters & the gatherers; the men hunt, the women & children gather berries.

I know it does not seem as exciting, but I suppose motherhood itself can be a bit adventurous, though such novels might not attract very many male readers.

Lots of fodder in that post but I take exception to this part particularly.

I would argue that it does not matter if you take the Genesis account literally or allegorically. In neither case does it "demand" that things be in any one particular way. The Bible and particularly the Old Testament developed in an extremely patriarchal society. And it is interesting to note (if you see the Old Testament as history) that there are women who develop into both strong heroes and villains. Leaving the role of strong capable woman open to any woman who aspires to it.

What I meant by 'demanding' was that the curse was that the woman must be subordinate to her husband. I believe I said that as an allegory, it merely justified the conditions that already existed; e.g., men were dominant, but as history, it was God's will that the husbands rule the wives.

The fact that there were a few notable Biblical women, the name Deborah comes to mind, as does Jezebel, does not change the norm, women's status was inferior to men's. Even as recently as the women's suffrage movement in the USA, I am persuaded that there were quite a few women who were against it. So thoroughly were they insistent on the Biblical model; They actually wanted to remain under their husbands' authority, rather than be regarded as their equals, citing the passage about Sarah calling Abraham 'lord.'

 

[Parson]

It is true that the story of Adam and Eve was/is used as a defense of women being subservient to men, but that assumes a kind of Biblical interpretation which takes a specific command and applies it generally. The judgement was on Eve "your desire will be for your husband..." and it is often taken as a general command.

It was seen this way in some New Testament texts, but there you also have to balance the full sweep of Scripture which says some very freeing things and the actual way the church business was done with this reading of the story of the fall.

 

[Jeffbert]

Parson, while I respect your opinion, I for one, do not recognize the NT; though this is not the place to discuss this, I must say so, to limit the current discussion to the Hebrew Bible, which even Christians respect.

But, anyway, as I was citing the creation story, I think it is appropriate to limit the discussion to it. I agree with you that there are several interpretations of God's curse on the woman, including that, as Eve was the presumed archetype for all women, & that their relationship was the archetype for all married couples, all women were also cursed likewise.

But my view of the story is that children when prepubescent, & especially pre-operational brains (younger than 7, under the age of reason) are immodest, & unable to understand their mothers' objections to their running around naked. While in this state, they have very few, if any, burdens (some cultures are exceptions, though). They cannot even understand danger; they are not only carefree, but careless. Their world view is very simplistic, and their mothers must guard them from their own acting on ignorance that otherwise would endanger them. Then, comes puberty: things change, hormones begin to flow, etc. The allegory is an oversimplification because these changes are gradual, up to a point, anyway. Now, the male is old enough to work in the fields, the female is now old enough to bear children. The free ride is over! The girl's papa gives her away as a bride or concubine. The bridegroom takes her as his wife, etc. No more do their parents & mothers, especially, provide for them.

The woman eats first, because females generally enter puberty two years earlier than males. The Serpent, need I say it? It represents sexual desire, & in specific--

In those now all but extinct cultures, there were coming of age rituals, I suppose the Bat Mitzvah is about all that remains. I read how that in 'premodern' cultures, the boy often receives a new name, or identity, & is forbidden from any contact with his mother; in some cases, she will not even recognize him. He has died to his old self, the child self, & has entered the adult world, with its sacred nature and secrets (as kept from those outside the group). Childhood is a profane condition of shame, adulthood is a sacred condition of pride (Eliade, 3, 8, 9, 14).




Eliade, Mircea. Rites and symbols of Initiation: The Mysteries of Birth and Rebirth. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Putnam CT: Spring Publications, 2005.

 

[Anne Lyle]

I have failed! Though I tried to avoid it, I cannot. I must be explicit: Men cannot give birth or milk; the woman's body is specially adapted to those tasks. My comments about the Smith (thanks for the correction) wanting to be a miner was a failed attempt to make that point, which I hoped would have been implied by the topic of this thread, etc. There, I have said it. Now I'm gonna die! Men, not being burdened with wombs & such, are free to pursue adventure, or rather forced into it because the women are otherwise occupied. The hunters & the gatherers; the men hunt, the women & children gather berries.

Agreed - there are physical differences that determine roles. Women in pre-industrial societies are obliged to take on the bulk of the childrearing (as well as the childbearing), which limits their freedom. But once a woman can control her fertility, the division between the sexes is greatly reduced, at least in theory. There's no reason why modern humans should be constrained by the biological demands of our ancestors.

But I still don't see how the smith/miner analogy holds water. Do you mean that a woman brought up to be a homemaker can't desire to have a career? I think you need to read about the women's suffrage movement before you make such claims

I know it does not seem as exciting, but I suppose motherhood itself can be a bit adventurous, though such novels might not attract very many male readers.

TBH it wouldn't interest me either. I prefer to read about swashbuckling rogues, particularly sexy male ones

 

[Susan Boulton]

. I prefer to read about swashbuckling rogues, particularly sexy male ones

Better yet, write about them

 

[Anne Lyle]

True, I do both

 

[sabolich]

Wow, this thread has picked up a little momentum, hasn't it? I cannot agree that in any but the smallest cultural units (tiny tribes and clans) is nature going to play the dominant role in male/female roles. Ancient hunter-gatherers were fully occupied in survival. There was no time and likely no concept of adventure. Not until societies became large enough and prosperous enough for diversification, where specialists could trade for food produced by others, do you get a loosening of those bonds. Until then, yeah, the men hunted and the women did everything else. Note that until the 1960s it was still that way even in Western societies, if the woman took the marriage rather than career track.

That said, there have always been rebels against the established, comfortable social order, from Anne Bonney the pirate to Sadie Marcus, Wyatt Earp's common law wife (who ran away from a very proper Jewish family) to all those women who joined the army long before any law allowed them to do so. I was in the second ROTC class that allowed women, which let me do all sorts of fun stuff like rappel down cliffs, sink a raft (and almost drown) whitewater rafting, run around in a jeep all over Europe, lead a platoon, and generally experience a lot more life than being stuck in the house with the kids would ever have let me do. I had nightmares as a young bride about being pregnant. No nurturing instinct here. Sorry.

What women will/can do is as much a matter of self-will as circumstance and societal acceptance. We have a society that encourages women to do what they want. Really rabid feminists will look down on them for choosing hubby, home and hearth. Real women believe they should do what makes them happiest. If that is picking up a sword and learning to use it better than the males around her, go for it, sister. If it is becoming the village wise woman, indeed, go for it. If it is being the best mom on the block, the world needs lots more good moms.

There are too many possible roles for women to fill to stereotype them into any "plausible" role in fiction. The point is to write a character whom you really, honestly, 100% believe can do all those things. Because, really, can just any guy who isn't built like Schwarzenegger do the Conan thing? Sheesh.

 

[Anne Lyle]

*applauds*

Small correction, however. Hunter-gatherer societies typically have more leisure time than agricultural ones. Agriculture is actually harder work, but food surpluses have their own advantages.

 

[sabolich]

*applauds*

Small correction, however. Hunter-gatherer societies typically have more leisure time than agricultural ones. Agriculture is actually harder work, but food surpluses have their own advantages.

LOL, I bow to greater knowledge. However, having both hunted and participated in the annual huckleberry-picking rituals of these parts in the mountains, holy cow, both are time-consuming. And then you have to drag it home, clean the stuff, preserve it, prepare it, turn the leftovers into clothing, utensils, whatever... I would guess only the men had much actual sit-around time, and hopefully they would at least be manufacturing weapons while the women were chasing the kiddies in their copious spare time.

What is amazing to me is that anyone had time or energy left to create the beautiful things they did leave behind for us to find. I wonder if it constituted mega-rebellion for a girl to want to carve a stone idol or paint the cave walls?

 

[Anne Lyle]

I'm only going by what I've read. Modern-day hunter-gatherers have been pushed into marginal habitats - in the past they would have occupied areas that provided a lot more food.

Not exactly food, but in a good year I've picked six pounds of sloes from the bushes near our house in about an hour. If that had been of a more edible fruit or nut (rather than one used to flavour gin!), I could have fed a family on 2-3 hours work a day. I wish I could support our household on so little work

 

[Parson]

But, anyway, as I was citing the creation story, I think it is appropriate to limit the discussion to it. I agree with you that there are several interpretations of God's curse on the woman, including that, as Eve was the presumed archetype for all women, & that their relationship was the archetype for all married couples, all women were also cursed likewise.

But my view of the story is that children when prepubescent, & especially pre-operational brains (younger than 7, under the age of reason) are immodest, & unable to understand their mothers' objections to their running around naked. While in this state, they have very few, if any, burdens (some cultures are exceptions, though). They cannot even understand danger; they are not only carefree, but careless. Their world view is very simplistic, and their mothers must guard them from their own acting on ignorance that otherwise would endanger them. Then, comes puberty: things change, hormones begin to flow, etc. The allegory is an oversimplification because these changes are gradual, up to a point, anyway. Now, the male is old enough to work in the fields, the female is now old enough to bear children. The free ride is over! The girl's papa gives her away as a bride or concubine. The bridegroom takes her as his wife, etc. No more do their parents & mothers, especially, provide for them.

The woman eats first, because females generally enter puberty two years earlier than males. The Serpent, need I say it? It represents sexual desire, & in specific--

In those now all but extinct cultures, there were coming of age rituals, I suppose the Bat Mitzvah is about all that remains. I read how that in 'premodern' cultures, the boy often receives a new name, or identity, & is forbidden from any contact with his mother; in some cases, she will not even recognize him. He has died to his old self, the child self, & has entered the adult world, with its sacred nature and secrets (as kept from those outside the group). Childhood is a profane condition of shame, adulthood is a sacred condition of pride (Eliade, 3, 8, 9, 14)

I apologize for assuming the Christian background. We will indeed limit, if we go further, to OT texts, which I do a whole more than just respect.

You make very good points. Obviously you have read/thought about this a good deal. Would you maintain then that the assumption that women are subservient to men in Fantasy is equally a kind of racial memory. We might know better, but when we write or read we make certain assumptions based on generalized experience.

I like to pride myself on having only slight bias, but one of my female friends ran a little experiment on me by telling me several stories where the gender of the main character was not given, but I found myself assuming that the character was either male or female just by the tone and the action of the story. A very humbling experience.

 

[Toby Frost]

I honestly think, and I don't mean to refer to your friend, Parson, that almost anyone can be caught out in some way. Prod the right nerve or use the right tone of phrase, and I suspect virtually anybody can be caught out as a sexist or, for that matter, racist in some way if you try hard enough. In writing, as with real life, I sometimes suspect that the best one can do is to remain fair and open-minded and, where judgment is required, to do it on the basis of facts rather than vague suspicion and/or prejudice. The best way to approach it is to discuss this person who happens to be female, rather than this woman who is, by virtue of being a woman, weird. I suppose that sounds vague, but actually it can lead to a nuanced approach: my lead character is crass and cannot open his mouth without putting his foot in it, but his instincts are ultimately moral, and at the end of the day he is a decent guy. If this was not the case I wouldn't be able to get the comedy and the likeability out of him I need for the character to work.

 

[Parson]

Well put Toby, I think you are exactly right. And I don't mind being thrown a life saver either.

 

[Jeffbert]

But I still don't see how the smith/miner analogy holds water. Do you mean that a woman brought up to be a homemaker can't desire to have a career? I think you need to read about the women's suffrage movement before you make such claims

O.k., a better analogy: Two HS athletes, 1 tall the other very broad shoulders, muscular, etc. We might assume that the tall one would pursue basketball, & the other, football, as they are better suited to these, but, what if they should want the sports to which they are not suited? The tall guy wants to be a linebacker, the stocky guy wants to play basketball. just as the smith is trained to use the anvil & forge, so the woman is equipped for bearing children. Please forgive me for this!

I apologize for being unclear.

Just so you know, my only adventures come on pages or video screens; I am anything but athletic.

 

[Anne Lyle]

OK, that's fair enough - you need the right physique to excel in certain physical activities. This is why men and women compete separately in sports - the top women just can't match the men's physical standards, at least not without (illegal) steroids. It's a simple fact of biology that men have a higher percentage muscle mass, more lung capacity, etc.

I don't think you can push this analogy into more complex tasks, though. It's true that, for example, more women go into teaching young children than men, no doubt (in part) for those nurturing instincts you mentioned. But there's no reason why men can't be just as good at the job as women, if their interests lie in that direction. Likewise women can excel in traditional male roles, e.g. scientists Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin.

It's all down to a combination of personal aptitude and social pressures - biology (i.e. sex chromosomes) plays a much smaller role than you think!

 

[Jeffbert]

I apologize for assuming the Christian background. We will indeed limit, if we go further, to OT texts, which I do a whole more than just respect.

You make very good points. Obviously you have read/thought about this a good deal. Would you maintain then that the assumption that women are subservient to men in Fantasy is equally a kind of racial memory. We might know better, but when we write or read we make certain assumptions based on generalized experience.

Lest you get the wrong impression, I am agnostic, though I think there is only 1 testament. As much as I would like to further discuss this, I think this is a bad place.

About your next paragraph, I need you to be very clear on the term "racial memory." Can you rephrase that statement?

I don't think you can push this analogy into more complex tasks, though. It's true that, for example, more women go into teaching young children than men, no doubt (in part) for those nurturing instincts you mentioned. But there's no reason why men can't be just as good at the job as women, if their interests lie in that direction. Likewise women can excel in traditional male roles, e.g. scientists Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin.

It's all down to a combination of personal aptitude and social pressures - biology (i.e. sex chromosomes) plays a much smaller role than you think!

I will not need to push it further, as it has served its purpose. I understand that a few men are teachers, I was teacher chess to elementary school kids for a few years, & added some experience to what little I thought I knew about kids.

But, anyway, back to the topic, I have read only the classic literature, it was the film versions that added women to the stories, but only so the hero would have somebody to rescue.

I suppose I would enjoy reading about female adventurers, as long as the thing was fairly believable, though scifi itself often requires the readers to suspend disbelief, I think that is the term I had heard. If the writer invents a whole new universe, why not make new laws of nature to go with it? What about androids or cyborgs? I guess manga & anime lead the way with these. They can be as petite as young girls, but as strong as any male. In this case, size is not such a limiting factor, & the smaller, lighter ones can out-maneuver their larger, heavier opponents. Then there are the human females whose sole advantages are perhaps, quick wits, & intelligence. I would find reading about such characters rather interesting.

 

[Parson]

Lest you get the wrong impression, I am agnostic, though I think there is only 1 testament. As much as I would like to further discuss this, I think this is a bad place.

About your next paragraph, I need you to be very clear on the term "racial memory." Can you rephrase that statement?

I did indeed draw the wrong conclusion (again!), assuming that you were Jewish. But in this place agnostic/atheist might just put you in the majority. Feel free to pm me if you want to talk about this a bit further.

What I meant by "racial memory" --- probably not the best use of the term --- was that women are subservient to men without any thought out bias, but rather because that's the way it's always done even from before critical thinking about these kinds of things became common place. A kind of direct line from the oral traditions from which Fantasy arose.

 

[Jeffbert]

I did indeed draw the wrong conclusion (again!), assuming that you were Jewish. But in this place agnostic/atheist might just put you in the majority. Feel free to pm me if you want to talk about this a bit further.

What I meant by "racial memory" --- probably not the best use of the term --- was that women are subservient to men without any thought out bias, but rather because that's the way it's always done even from before critical thinking about these kinds of things became common place. A kind of direct line from the oral traditions from which Fantasy arose.

O.k., to answer your question, while I cannot comment on modern fantasy, the older, classic stuff such as E. R. Burroughs, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, & others during that time wrote, yes, I would say that they put women in roles that were appropriate for the culture at that time. I read all of E.R. Burroughs' Mars, moon, Venus, Pellucidar, & the LAND THAT TIME FORGOT series. Likewise, I read all the Professor Challenger stories. In these, women, if they were there at all, were there to give the heroes damsels to rescue. In Journey to the Center of the Earth, only the men went on the expedition, though the 1950s film version did include at least 1 woman, she was only there to be rescued. Likewise the Verne & Wells Moon adventures. Women only went in the 1950s & '60s film versions, & then, they likely screamed, fainted, & needed rescue. Though MASTER OF THE WORLD is one of my favorite Vincent Price films, & I have read both that & Robur, The Conquerer, I cannot recall if any women were in either novel as adventurers.

I think that if any author had dared to defy convention & created female characters in any but the helpless damsel role, he or she would have sold very few copies of that story, & perhaps would have been lucky if any subsequent novels regardless of female characters, sold at all.